Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

If you understand how human memory works, this is perfectly understandable. Human's don't have a TIVO inside their heads that records and plays back exactly what happened. We remember some things and then fill in with assumptions. In this example, Giobbi may have accurately remembered they were having a pizza, but his mind filled in the detail of a pizzaria.

I see, so Giobbi's memory alone is correct, while Amanda's, Raffaele's and that of the other police officers is incorrect, simply because it's convenient for your theory? Do I have you right?

 

[shuttlt]

Sorry Halides1, I don't understand what the importance is of him phoning his sister a minute before he phoned the police. Could you spell this out for me, because I really don't get it.

 

[shuttlt]

I see, so Giobbi's memory alone is correct, while Amanda's, Raffaele's and that of the other police officers is incorrect, simply because it's convenient for your theory? Do I have you right?

And what difference does it make anyway?

 

[Fulcanelli]

And what difference does it make anyway?

None. Except Kestrel seems to think it will demonstrate that 'they were out to get Amanda', ergo, she's a poor little victim of police persecution.

 

[Kestrel]

I do not think I am confused, Kestrel.



That is your belief. It is at odds with what Knox said more than once in her testimony. For example



this is in line with Filomen's testimony about the phone call she had with Knox while Knox was in the waiting room at the questura, too

So the fact is that you choose to believe what Giobbi said: and I choose to believe what Knox and the rest of the police said. I choose this because it seems to me to fit the facts better. I cannot believe that if she had been asked to attend she would have been in the waiting room doing cartwheels. It could happen if the police wanted to do consecutive interviews; but Giobbi said he wished to see Knox and Sollecito interviewed together. That did not happen. His testimony is at odds with knox's; with that of the police;with what Filomana said; and with what happened. As I said before, where testimony conflicts one must make a judgement.

What are your reasons for preferring Giobbi's account?

Giobbi's account matches up with a standard police interrogation tactic. Bring in two suspects accused of participating in a crime together. Separate them so they can't observe what the other is saying.

Once Raffaele is taken into the interview room, Amanda can't talk to him or find out what he has told the police. Nor can Raffaele find out what Amanda has said. The police are then free to tell each suspect lies about what the other has said. For example, they told Raffaele that Amanda said they didn't have sex on the night of the murder.

I don't find it all odd that some of the police at the station would not know that Amanda had been called in for questioning.

 

[Fiona]

I would prefer we do not attribute motive to the participants in this thread unless and until we have more to go on

As Jungle Jim noted, this case is full of confusion. While that is frustrating, it is also very usual in real life court cases and our expectations, where informed by television and crime novels and such, are just plain unrealistic.

I am grateful to Mr D, who has made a very constructive post trying to re-focus this thread and I hope that we can get it back on track as a balanced discussion.

To that end I have taken this one point about whether Knox was asked to go to the police station on the 5th. I acknowledge there are conflicting testimonies and i have laid out my reasons for preferring one over the other. I have asked Kestrel, who brought the point up again, to do the same. I am hoping he will answer this. Once he has done that he can perhaps also indicate what he sees as the implications of accepting his judgement rather than the other. And then we can all see what the argument is and can reach our own conclusions

I said upthread that I find myself colluding with the the attempts to turn this into a matter of two sides: it is always hard to resist that temptation and some have an interest in making a combat out of this. I don't. I do not have a "side". I want the best conclusion I can on the basis of the evidence I can get. I believe I have looked at what is available and have considered it as objectively as I can. I have reached a conclusion. New evidence can shift it. Re-hashing old stuff cannot. I do not think there is any new evidence to be had at this stage: but interpretation of the evidence we all share could also change my mind.

I wish to test that. This one small point about whether AK was summoned to the police station is not important to whether RS and AK are guilty or not. But it can be used to find out whether we are all trying to do the same thing. If there is a good argument as to why Giobbi's testimony is to be preferred I want to hear it. I trust that that argument does not come down to "it suits my predetermned conclusion better" and I will do so until it seems that trust is misplaced

 

[Fulcanelli]

Giobbi's account matches up with a standard police interrogation tactic. Bring in two suspects accused of participating in a crime together. Separate them so they can't observe what the other is saying.

While it may match your preconceived notion of police standard tactics, it does not match the actual known facts.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

I don't find it all odd that some of the police at the station would not know that Amanda had been called in for questioning.

I do find it odd that Amanda didn't know that Amanda had been called in for questioning.

 

[Fiona]

Giobbi's account matches up with a standard police interrogation tactic. Bring in two suspects accused of participating in a crime together. Separate them so they can't observe what the other is saying.

Once Raffaele is taken into the interview room, Amanda can't talk to him or find out what he has told the police. Nor can Raffaele find out what Amanda has said. The police are then free to tell each suspect lies about what the other has said. For example, they told Raffaele that Amanda said they didn't have sex on the night of the murder.

I don't find it all odd that some of the police at the station would not know that Amanda had been called in for questioning.

Cross posted again.

Ok. I do not disagree that the police sometimes do this. It makes a lot of sense and I can see nothing wrong with it at all. So if they did do this then can I take it you agree that it is in no way abusive or coercive or illegitimate? It is standard police procedure.

As I said, I do not believe this is what actually happened. I see no reason why Knox would say on different occasions that it did not happen that way. I can see no reason why they did not take each to an interview room as soon as they arrived, if this was the intention. I see no reason why the police who were actually involved would not know this was the case (the people working on other cases, assuming there were any at that point, might not know: but those directly on this investigation and who were present in the police station would, surely)

It seems to me that your conclusion is based on the fact that the police sometimes do this. That is a general observation: my conclusion is based on the fact of this case: more specific. You have testimony from one individual (albeit an important one) as against rather more people (including Knox) who disagree.

But we must each reach a judgement on this as on many other contested issues. And each of us must do so as seems most likely to us.

The next question is what are the implications for the conviction of each position? How is this important in your mind?

 

[Kestrel]

The next question is what are the implications for the conviction of each position? How is this important in your mind?

It's not really that important. The reason that Amanda went to the police station on the night of Nov. 5th doesn't prove anything about the conditions under which she signed the statement at 5:45 AM on Nov. 6th.

ETA: As for the earlier claim that the testimony from Knox proves that the 5:45 AM statement was voluntary, look a bit earlier in the transcripts:

Furthermore, and I conclude, but this will also come up in my questions after the end of the examination by the defense, the topic of these declarations was also the topic of the handwritten memorandum that was acquired by the Court, and this same manuscript can be recalled, in my opinion, insofar as it makes reference to these declarations, for the same questions that we can ask the accused today.

This should make it clear the "memorandum" refers to the handwritten statement she wrote later in the day, not the "declarations" made at 1:45 and 5:45 AM.

 

[quadraginta]

It's not really that important. The reason that Amanda went to the police station on the night of Nov. 5th don't really prove anything about the conditions under which she signed the statement at 5:45 AM on Nov. 6th.

Let's see now. ~10:00pm to ~5:45 am the next morning. How far into the 14hr. or 30hr. or 40 hr. brutal interrogation was that ~7hrs. and 45 mins.?

Do you contest that she took time for a nice, leisurely meal before she voluntarily was forced to testify, or do you have yet another statement that contradicts everyone else's which you prefer to use for that detail?

 

[Kestrel]

Let's see now. ~10:00pm to ~5:45 am the next morning. How far into the 14hr. or 30hr. or 40 hr. brutal interrogation was that ~7hrs. and 45 mins.?

Do you contest that she took time for a nice, leisurely meal before she voluntarily was forced to testify, or do you have yet another statement that contradicts everyone else's which you prefer to use for that detail?

Where did I claim that she was interrogated for 14 consecutive hours?

 

[Fulcanelli]

ETA: As for the earlier claim that the testimony from Knox proves that the 5:45 AM statement was voluntary, look a bit earlier in the transcripts:

Why are you trying to contest an uncontested fact? It is well established in this case her second statement was voluntary and nobody involved in the case has ever contested that fact. Do you know better then all of them?

 

[Fiona]

Areas of dispute.

Issue| Position 1| Position 2| Position 3| Importance Knox to police station 5/11 | Summoned| Invited| Own choice| None at all
RS call to sister 2/11 | = to calling the police|for advice only| ?| None because he did call the police a minute later

May I take it that we are agreed that these two issues, at least, can be put to bed? Can we cut each other some slack if we inadvertently present our different views as assertions and recognise that wherever we stand these two do not matter and are not worth re-opening?

 

[Fiona]

Furthermore, and I conclude, but this will also come up in my questions after the end of the examination by the defense, the topic of these declarations was also the topic of the handwritten memorandum that was acquired by the Court, and this same manuscript can be recalled, in my opinion, insofar as it makes reference to these declarations, for the same questions that we can ask the accused today.

This should make it clear the "memorandum" refers to the handwritten statement she wrote later in the day, not the "declarations" made at 1:45 and 5:45 AM.

No I am afraid it does not.

First: do you agree that the note in prison was written on the 7th and not on the evening of the 6th? I am not sure it matters very much but that is my understanding

Second: how do you reconcile what you have quoted above with :

LG: So it was between this time and the time you went to prison that you wrote the
memorial?

AK: Yes. I wrote it there because, I asked to do it because I was telling them
"Listen, you're not hearing me, give me a piece of paper, and I'll write this
down in English to be sure you understand what I'm saying." But I couldn't
really say that. I just said "Look, I'll give you a present."

<snip>

LG: All right Amanda, okay. Thank you. So you went to prison and spent the night.
When did you write the second memorial?

AK: So in prison I again asked for paper,

It is clear that several different words are used to refer to the various statements she made and we canno distinguish them by focussing on particular words in one part of the testimony, as you seem to be trying to do. It is also clear that she wrote one declaration in the police station (questura) and a second in prison.

and

GM: I wanted to spend a moment on one last question, maybe the last but I don't
know, about the morning of the 6th.

AK: Okay.

GM: There's another thing I didn't understand. You said pressure was put on
you, and there were suggestions, you explained today exactly what those
consisted in, to say the name of Patrick and to accuse Patrick. Then you
wrote a memorandum in which you confirm everything. And you weren't under
pressure right then....

<snip>



during the 5th and the 6th,
you said there were pressures, and the name of Patrick Lumumba emerged as also
being involved in these events. But as the pubblico ministero notes, you then
you wrote the memorandum spontaneously. We heard that you yourself asked for
paper to be able to write it.

AK: Certainly.

GCM: And writing with this liberty, you even referred to it as a gift, these
elements which had already emerged, you reasserted them, and this involvement of Patrick Lumumba.....

<snip>

GM: I see. All right. I take note of what you're saying. Now, let's talk
about your memorandum from the 7th, still written in total autonomy, without
anyone around you. You wrote: "I didn't lie when I said that I thought the
murderer was Patrick.

This part of the testimony demonstrates that the "gift" was the 5:45 am declaration and that she stated she gave it spontaneously. It also show that the second memrandum was written on the 7th

and

CP: Okay, let's talk about your memorandum of November 6.

AK: Okay.

CP: Did you, on the morning of November 6, ask the agents of the judicial
police for paper to write on?

AK: Yes.

CP: Did you also spontaneously ask for a pen?

AK: Yes.

CPL In what language did you write your memorandum?

AK: In English.

CP: When you wrote it, were the contents suggested to you by the police?

AK: No. It wasn't. I wrote it to explain my confusion to the police. Because
when I told them that I wasn't sure, and that I didn't want to sign their
declaration, and that I thought it was all a big mistake, they didn't want
to listen. When I told them that I wasn't sure, they said that I would
remember everything later, that I should be patient, and keep trying to
remember. I was feeling uncomfortable about these declarations that I
had made, so I asked for paper to explain my confusion, beacuse I really
wasn't sure.

CP: When did you write the memorandum? More or less?

AK: I don't remember.

CP: In the late morning? After you were served with an arrest warrant?
Towards midday?

AK: Well, I was still in the Questura.

CP: Yes, but in the late morning? Of the 6th?

AK: You know, there was so much confusion during the night, and so many hours
of interrogation, that my sense of time was gone.

CP: When you wrote the memorandum, were you hit by police?

AK: When?

CP: When you wrote the memorandum. Were you hit by police?

AK: No.

CP: Mistreated?

AK: No.

CP: Did the police suggest the contents?

AK: No.

CP: You gave it to them freely?

AK: Yes.

CP: Voluntarily?

AK: Yes.

This last includes the part I quoted before. It is your contention that it does not refer to the declaration made at 5:45 am on 6/11. It seems to follow that you think it refers to the letter she wrote when she was in the prison. But if that were the case then the police were not there and there is no sense in asking the questions about them which are put to her. The record of question and answer shows they are talking specifically about the statement made on the morning of 6/11 and she says she was in the Questura when she made it.

I think you are assuming that each of the statements is consistently referred to by all concerned by a distinct term: but that is not the case. It is perfectly clear from these parts of her testimony that she is indeed talking about the statement she made at 5:45: and that she says she did this at her own request.l At least it seems perfectly clear to me. Is it possible to agree this now?

*my bolding throughout

 

[Chris_Halkides]

word choices

To me, "utterly without foundation" seems that you have considered all the facts and found the claims false, while "speculation without support" seems looser phrase and you would consider the claim if more facts came to light.

Upon reflection "speculation without support" was a better choice of words. And if new facts came to light, I would reconsider.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Raffaele's phone call

Sorry Halides1, I don't understand what the importance is of him phoning his sister a minute before he phoned the police. Could you spell this out for me, because I really don't get it.

Shuttit,

To me, the fact that he called his sister and not his father implies that he had begun to think that the situation was serious enough to warrant police involvement, in other word, he wished to tap into her insights and experience. She told him to call the Italian equivalent of 911, which he did. To me this call adds a modicum of credibility to his declaration of innocence. If he were guilty but trying to cover his tracks, he might as well put the call into the police without calling his sister first. I find this more important than whether his call to the police was before or after the arrival of the postal police. My initial comment on this matter was misfocused. I zeroed in on the time of his call to his sister (which I believe to be before the arrival of the postal police), but I now think that other aspects of that conversation are more important.

Assuming that legal privileges are the same in the U.S. as in Italy with respect to family members, his sister would have to report their conversations according to the laws and rules governing carabinieri, there being no sibling privilege in the sense that there is a spouse privilege. In other words, his conversation with his sister would be under the same rules as a hypothetical one that took place between him and a carabinieri who (let us say) happened to live down the street. To put it a different way, the actual conversation could be just as easily be referred to as a conversation between Sollecito and a carabinieri as it is called a conversation between him and his sister. My opinions only.

Chris

 

[Kestrel]

This last includes the part I quoted before. It is your contention that it does not refer to the declaration made at 5:45 am on 6/11. It seems to follow that you think it refers to the letter she wrote when she was in the prison. But if that were the case then the police were not there and there is no sense in asking the questions about them which are put to her. The record of question and answer shows they are talking specifically about the statement made on the morning of 6/11 and she says she was in the Questura when she made it.

I think you are assuming that each of the statements is consistently referred to by all concerned by a distinct term: but that is not the case. It is perfectly clear from these parts of her testimony that she is indeed talking about the statement she made at 5:45: and that she says she did this at her own request.l At least it seems perfectly clear to me. Is it possible to agree this now?

This makes it absolutely clear there were two interrogations of Amanda during the night of Nov 5-6.

CDV: The genericity of the question relative to the interrogation of November 6th must be specified. I recall that this document was declared unusable by the Supreme Court. Decision of April 1, 2008. So whenever we refer to the time period of the 5th and 6th of November, when you refer to transcripts from November 6 in a plural form, it is absolutely necessary to give a time reference for the interrogation being referred to. Because there is one transcript which was declared inadmissible and the other admissible against others but not against Amanda.

CP? Excuse me, Presidente, but this objection is really "peregrina" [bizarre]. The interrogation of November 6 at 1:45 and the interrogation of November 6 at 5:45 have both been acquired [included in the dossier] in the body of evidence of the slander case, and thus they are perfectly admissible in the aim of any contestation from this attorney [CP speaking of himself in the 3rd person]. Otherwise, we would be in a situation that lies outside any logic of the legal code, so I will repeat and reformulate my question. On November 6, 2007, at 1:45, you said that you went to the house in via della Pergola with Patrick. Did you go?

Read a bit further and you will find the 5:45 interrogation included the Public Minister.

This is the interrogation where Amanda claims to have been hit by the police.

CP: Why at 5:45am on November 6 did you state that before she died you covered your ears?

AK: In my confusion, under the pressure of the police, I had to follow a reasoning that they had suggested to me, saying that I should have heard a scream of Meredith. The fact that I couldn't remember this fact suggested that I must have covered my ears. So I followed that reasoning.

CP: Did they hit you to make you say this?

AK: They hit me twice, before I said the name of Patrick, to make me say a name that I couldn't give.

The handwritten memorandum you were talking about was written by Amanda sometime later on Nov. 6. While she was in a cell and not an interrogation room.

 

[Fiona]

Kestrel I do not understand whether you are agreeing or disagreeing. Perhaps it is me but I do not find what you say straightforward and clear. Let me ask you again

Do you agree that in her testimony Knox is referring to the statement she made at 5:45 on the 6th November. If not, why not?

Do you agree that she says more than once that she made it at her own request? If not, why not

Do you agree that the her second spontaneous declaration was made in prison on the 7th: and again if you do not can you say why?

 

[stilicho]

If he were guilty but trying to cover his tracks, he might as well put the call into the police without calling his sister first. I find this more important than whether his call to the police was before or after the arrival of the postal police.

He called the Carabinieri while the Postal Police were at the cottage. This is established fact. None of the contrary scenarios make any sense.

Can we add this to the list of all the things we all agree upon?